Saturday, April 18, 2015

I wrote Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, about the Department of Education, student loans, college, and communities.

Since President Kennedy's race to space, our Department of Education and Corporate America have diverted the best and brightest children in our public schools, toward college and science/technology/business careers.

Well, that isn't paying off so well anymore. The workplace spaces for the talented and best people has become a cattle market, balancing influxes of cheap, raw talent against dwindling opportunities and needs.

At the same time, our communities struggle, making do with the "dregs" of the school system's college-track sifting net. We need craftspeople, and bright business people. I am sure you are aware, that people that complete college are at a severe disadvantage, many of us, in applying for blue collar positions -- many managers will *not* consider hiring someone with college background. The difference in outlook, on questioning assumptions, and diversion, for some, from a dedicated work ethic, makes them unsuited, or at least difficult, to prosper in common community positions.

College does *not* make one brighter, nor does skipping college make one less smart. As our economy declines, and the world economy looks less robust, questions of sustainability in education and community life arise.

I feel we need to begin de-emphasizing college as a "right" or "necessary" preparation for life. Liberal arts, for those interested in that kind of balance and intent in their lives, that can afford it, should be encouraged. Government and corporate interests in maintaining cadres of technology and science candidates should manage those resources, not the school system.

The current atmosphere of predatory university and college pricing, and loan sharking, must come to an end. At the same time, we need to recognize that draining needed talent from communities is not sustainable, in the long run, not even financially.

Ms. Richardson, you left am important distinction out of
your story -- that mostly white, heterosexual bakery and other business
owners are part of the "targeted" class of citizens created by President
Obama his first month in office. President Obama established that it is
a Federal hate crime to act against anyone that isn't white *and* isn't
heterosexual based on race, religion, etc. By executive order, there
can be no Federal hate crime if the victims are white and heterosexual.

You didn't mention if non-white, Christian bakery owners have taken stands,
or been harassed. You haven't mentioned if there are pagan or Jewish
businesses that cater specifically and exclusively to their own
community, to the exclusion of all others.

One
other aspect you aren't covering is the money flow -- who is paying to
congregate and communicate with protestors, who funds the lawyer and
media efforts to establish and publicize these gay-rights fund raising
activities?

For other anti-social acts, we have had to learn to focus on the bullies, the thieves, the rapists, the murderers to reduce risk to citizens. I feel irritation that gay terrorists enjoy immunity from scrutiny.

There is a difference between shunning, and actively interfering with a business -- the latter is using terror and intimidation to attempt social change outside legal venues. Terrorism. The goal of taking away another's choices, of establishing your own rules without the responsibility of governing well, is terrorism.